Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
All this talk about how this hurts competition are either trolls or lack the necessary capacity for processing information and coming to logical conclusions about it.

Look at what Microsoft is doing. Now that's competition. Competition is coming up with your own ideas and running with it on the fair, open market. We'll see how well Metro does in the mobile space. I don't particularly like it, personally, but I respect Microsoft for the choices they made, and for doing their own thing. Apple won't be suing them. Apple has no grounds for suing them, under the law or under common sense.

What Samsung has been doing is not even close to competition. The copying was blatant. The copying was willful. We know this from Samsung's own internal documents. It was Samsung's goal to create cheap clones of Apple's products, rush them to market, and take advantage of Apple's efforts in R&D and marketing to coast along.

Competition is fair, the winner chosen strictly on the merits. Microsoft spent their own money on R&D, and they're spending their own money on advertising their products. That's fair, and if Windows 8 does well in the mobile space, they will have earned it. Samsung spent no money on R&D, copied Apple's hard work, and coasted along into the market on the wake of Apple's advertising. That's not fair at all, Samsung clearly has an advantage in cost-to-market. If Samsung does well, it's because they made their product cheaper through stealing designs from their competitor, resulting in lower carrier subsidies and greater push from those carriers in the stores accordingly.

Apple is a pretty confident company, I would wager. I believe them when they say they don't mind competition, because they believe that on a level playing field they can win. They just want everyone else to make their own stuff.

Consumers should want everyone else to make their own stuff too. That's how we get interesting new ideas like Microsoft has been working on (and, wow, who'd have thought anyone would be able to say that with a straight face?). If every product looks like an iPhone running iOS, what, exactly, is the advantage to the consumer? I can't think of any. This verdict isn't going to hurt the consumer one bit, it's just going to result in more companies doing their own thing and coming up with actual new ideas.
 
All this talk about how this hurts competition are either trolls or lack the necessary capacity for processing information and coming to logical conclusions about it.

Look at what Microsoft is doing. Now that's competition. Competition is coming up with your own ideas and running with it on the fair, open market. We'll see how well Metro does in the mobile space. I don't particularly like it, personally, but I respect Microsoft for the choices they made, and for doing their own thing. Apple won't be suing them. Apple has no grounds for suing them, under the law or under common sense.

What Samsung has been doing is not even close to competition. The copying was blatant. The copying was willful. We know this from Samsung's own internal documents. It was Samsung's goal to create cheap clones of Apple's products, rush them to market, and take advantage of Apple's efforts in R&D and marketing to coast along.

Competition is fair, the winner chosen strictly on the merits. Microsoft spent their own money on R&D, and they're spending their own money on advertising their products. That's fair, and if Windows 8 does well in the mobile space, they will have earned it. Samsung spent no money on R&D, copied Apple's hard work, and coasted along into the market on the wake of Apple's advertising. That's not fair at all, Samsung clearly has an advantage in cost-to-market. If Samsung does well, it's because they made their product cheaper through stealing designs from their competitor, resulting in lower carrier subsidies and greater push from those carriers in the stores accordingly.

Apple is a pretty confident company, I would wager. I believe them when they say they don't mind competition, because they believe that on a level playing field they can win. They just want everyone else to make their own stuff.

Consumers should want everyone else to make their own stuff too. That's how we get interesting new ideas like Microsoft has been working on (and, wow, who'd have thought anyone would be able to say that with a straight face?). If every product looks like an iPhone running iOS, what, exactly, is the advantage to the consumer? I can't think of any. This verdict isn't going to hurt the consumer one bit, it's just going to result in more companies doing their own thing and coming up with actual new ideas.

Yes I agree, but what if what is copywrighted is something that's almost required as common function for that device.

Like a wheel on a car, the steering wheel on a car, the mirror in the centre to see behind you.

I don't think anyone cares about many points, but it's when you try and stop people doing fundamental things, like swiping on glass in a certain direction
 
Yes I agree, but what if what is copywrighted is something that's almost required as common function for that device.

Like a wheel on a car, the steering wheel on a car, the mirror in the centre to see behind you.

I don't think anyone cares about many points, but it's when you try and stop people doing fundamental things, like swiping on glass in a certain direction
There's actually a guy who invented the intermittent wipers. He was on Letterman once. I believe he got royalties for his work.
 
Yes I agree, but what if what is copywrighted is something that's almost required as common function for that device.

Like a wheel on a car, the steering wheel on a car, the mirror in the centre to see behind you.

I don't think anyone cares about many points, but it's when you try and stop people doing fundamental things, like swiping on glass in a certain direction

Then you license from the inventor !!! That's how patent works. Microsoft did it. Samsung refused to license from Apple even though they put the entire modern smartphone together, plus the ecosystem. Instead they paid Microsoft for other violations. That's the problem.

Perhaps Samsung management think they know everything about iPhone because they are Apple's key OEM. They think they can just repeat the feat by themselves without acknowledging Apple.

They think they can get away with it. They intend to market their product as a cheaper but duplicated Apple product: "Are you stupid ? Why don't you buy this cheaper but identical product ? We invented this from the ground up without Apple.". Sounds familiar ?

EDIT: People who try to zero in on just 1 patent ignored the overall Samsung strategy and tactical moves.

By blindly copying Apple after they have taken all the risks, Samsung will hurt innovation in the long term because the major suppliers can just sit and wait for good things to happen. That's why patents are invented to reward the first people who did it.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between inventing and innovating - Samsung's latest handsets have a few clever tricks. They're a big company, so they must have invented something sometime. But as far as smartphones go, the answer to your first question is no. The answer to your second and third question is obvious: no. The answer to your last question is yes. Android would have existed today, but it would be copying RIM.

Even if they copied RIM, it won't be as good as it is today...
 
Yes I agree, but what if what is copywrighted is something that's almost required as common function for that device.

Like a wheel on a car, the steering wheel on a car, the mirror in the centre to see behind you.

I don't think anyone cares about many points, but it's when you try and stop people doing fundamental things, like swiping on glass in a certain direction

First of all it's copyrighted, not copywrighted (those little red underlines are trying to tell you something). Secondly, as other manufacturers' devices have shown, the upheld patents (as opposed to copyrights, which are typically written works) are not necessary to bring smartphones and tablets to market. Finally, the steering wheel was not patented per se, but numerous improvements and innovations to it have been. The same is true for automobile wheels. Your analogy is wrong.

Apple is not trying to protect a patent on touchscreen technology. Just on their innovative way of a user interacting with it.
 
So much none sense being spewed from both ends of the spectrum in this thread. Fact is, people who weren't there listening to the ruling can't hardly say the ruling was just or unjust based solely on what we know from internet knowledge. To those fans and "anti-fans" that say THEY should have been on the jury: I am happy you weren't!
 
Then you license from the inventor !!! That's how patent works. Microsoft did it. Samsung refused to license from Apple even though they put the entire modern smartphone together, plus the ecosystem. Instead they paid Microsoft for other violations. That's the problem.

Perhaps Samsung management think they know everything about iPhone because they are Apple's key OEM. They think they can just repeat the feat by themselves without acknowledging Apple.

They think they can get away with it. They intend to market their product as a cheaper but duplicated Apple product: "Are you stupid ? Why don't you buy this cheaper but identical product ? We invented this from the ground up without Apple.". Sounds familiar ?

I suppose is, I, and many others feel you should not be able to patent something that's fundamental to the basics of the type of product.

Yes, patent something very specific, but they are to general, as I say, you should not be able to patent the round wheel, the steering wheel, the lever for changing gear, the sheet of glass you can see thru, the having a wheel in each corner.
You may have come up with the ideas, other see this idea is then the natural way a car needs to be fundamentally made, and makes their own cars based upon these fundamentals.

By all means patent specifics, but not fundamental things. I think this is 99% of what people are moaning about with Apple.

Either that, or the licence fee should be low and expire very quick on things deems fundemental to a product.

The whole world we enjoy now only exists due to people working in this way.

If companies acted like Apple does now, a few hundred years ago, we would be crippled by now.
 
Samsung can always put the prices of their CPUs up to pay for it, I am sure that their customers will understand, oh hang on,
I have never read so much dumb ass as here, lines such as apple should buy Samsung, yeah right you do realise just how big Samsung is, 1 billion is 25% of q4 profit,
Samsung are the world leaders at component manufacturing and apple have just pissed them of, If I was samsung I would slow up them production lines for CPUs for iPhone 5, sweet karma for a low move from apple. Not a popular opinion around here I know, but it needs to be said,
Also don't forget this also applies to only the US, there is the rest of the world where this ******** will not get a look in!!!


Apple buys with a contract for X amount of whatever they buy. Samsung agrees to it. If they do, they make it. They can't just slow it down or cause a problem. They can be sued (yet again), and lose (yet again!).

Plus Apple has other manufactures that can make what they want (LG, Sony, Toshiba, TSMC) to make what they need as well. Samsung isn't a monopoly on these things.
 
I suppose is, I, and many others feel you should not be able to patent something that's fundamental to the basics of the type of product.

Yes, patent something very specific, but they are to general, as I say, you should not be able to patent the round wheel, the steering wheel, the lever for changing gear, the sheet of glass you can see thru, the having a wheel in each corner.
You may have come up with the ideas, other see this idea is then the natural way a car needs to be fundamentally made, and makes their own cars based upon these fundamentals.

By all means patent specifics, but not fundamental things. I think this is 99% of what people are moaning about with Apple.

Either that, or the licence fee should be low and expire very quick on things deems fundemental to a product.

The whole world we enjoy now only exists due to people working in this way.

If companies acted like Apple does now, a few hundred years ago, we would be crippled by now.

There are holes in the current patent system, but I doubt Apple will stop just because Samsung got away with 1 patent. Apple is after the value system and principles behind Samsung's strategy.

License fee will be negotiated based on fair market value. Since Samsung settled with MS for $10 per device (down from $15), there is no reason why they can't pay Apple some $$$ that both parties agree.

To be fair to Apple, they did agree to license their technologies. Samsung is the one who walked away. So you should blame Samsung for the misjudgment. Why not fight MS since they didn't "invent" modern smartphones ? Why not pay Apple ?

People will just innovate their way around Apple. Microsoft bought up tons of Kinnect IPs too, yet more natural interface companies spring up to do similar things in different ways. Don't underestimate/undervalue innovation. It is more powerful than what Samsung thinks innovation is.

EDIT: I just remember Apple is the one who championed WebKit, AirPlay audio, open developer AppStore, standards based media stack, and other industry standards. I don't think Apple want to stiffle competition. They are willing to compete fairly and foster innovation.
 
Last edited:
Apple is not trying to protect a patent on touchscreen technology. Just on their innovative way of a user interacting with it.

This is the issue I take. Apple got together with "Fingerworks", one of the companies essential in current multi-touch systems. In doing so, they had a good grip (no pun intended) on such tech and began filing patents on everything they could get even before the iPhone was released (as I recall the iPad was produced in 2004, but Apple wished to enter the mobile market first). How many other ways can one interact with a small, multi-touch device? I've been racking my brain on how else one may interact on a small device with two hands other than what Apple was able to get by the patent office. Should "pinch to zoom" be two fingers and a thumb? Triple tap? Patents on shapes? Are you kidding?

I believe this is much more complicated than what we have been shown (and I agree with another user, we can't make a judgment call on a judgment without all the facts).
 
Watch what happens if the Surface or Windows Phone becomes super popular, they'll attempt to find a loophole to pull the cross licensing on the Surface and the Windows Phones ( tho I don't think they have any for Windows Phone, its VERY different ), then sue Microsoft and say they invented everything on the Surface/Windows Phone.

Apple is concerned with protecting their brand from a company that has tried to gain traction by ripping off the iPhone, blatantly, and passing it off as a clone.

Microsoft has actually, you know, tried to differentiate themselves.

What happened to the company that made phones I wanted to buy?


You were never an Apple fan; don't try to kid us.

So, other than looking like a rectangle.

They run different OS's, use different hardware, have a different amount of buttons, are different sizes, use different apps, and aren't even made of the same material?

Yes, copying!

No offence, but you have to be dense to think that there's a difference between Samsung's Android and Apple's iOS.

The packaging, the home screen, the icons, the look and feel, the design - all based on iOS just so Samsung can get a foothold in the marketplace with cheap knock offs to confuse the public.
 
I suppose is, I, and many others feel you should not be able to patent something that's fundamental to the basics of the type of product.

Yes, patent something very specific, but they are to general, as I say, you should not be able to patent the round wheel, the steering wheel, the lever for changing gear, the sheet of glass you can see thru, the having a wheel in each corner.
You may have come up with the ideas, other see this idea is then the natural way a car needs to be fundamentally made, and makes their own cars based upon these fundamentals.

By all means patent specifics, but not fundamental things. I think this is 99% of what people are moaning about with Apple.

Either that, or the licence fee should be low and expire very quick on things deems fundemental to a product.

The whole world we enjoy now only exists due to people working in this way.

If companies acted like Apple does now, a few hundred years ago, we would be crippled by now.

Once again you're argument is based on complete lack of knowledge of the facts. Much of the technology that our current society is based on WAS patented. Various versions of the steam engine, the telegraph, the telephone, various television technologies, just to name a few.

Patents actually HELP innovation, because the mercenaries in us all want to be rewarded for our research and efforts. If I invent a groundbreaking technology I want to know I am going to get paid.
 
This is the issue I take. Apple got together with "Fingerworks", one of the companies essential in current multi-touch systems. In doing so, they had a good grip (no pun intended) on such tech and began filing patents on everything they could get even before the iPhone was released (as I recall the iPad was produced in 2004, but Apple wished to enter the mobile market first). How many other ways can one interact with a small, multi-touch device? I've been racking my brain on how else one may interact on a small device with two hands other than what Apple was able to get by the patent office. Should "pinch to zoom" be two fingers and a thumb? Triple tap? Patents on shapes? Are you kidding?

I believe this is much more complicated than what we have been shown (and I agree with another user, we can't make a judgment call on a judgment without all the facts).

It won't be more expensive than $10 per device that Samsung paid MS ($15 for other manufacturers). That's too high. Samsung can take them to task if the license is too expensive, and Apple becomes anti-competitive. We would be after Apple if it turns out this way. But Samsung chose the other route and this is the current outcome.

If Samsung truly believe in what they do, why did they choose to destroy evidence(s) ? Plus other shenanigans during the trial ?
 
Last edited:
This is the issue I take. Apple got together with "Fingerworks", one of the companies essential in current multi-touch systems. In doing so, they had a good grip (no pun intended) on such tech and began filing patents on everything they could get even before the iPhone was released (as I recall the iPad was produced in 2004, but Apple wished to enter the mobile market first). How many other ways can one interact with a small, multi-touch device? I've been racking my brain on how else one may interact on a small device with two hands other than what Apple was able to get by the patent office. Should "pinch to zoom" be two fingers and a thumb? Triple tap? Patents on shapes? Are you kidding?

I believe this is much more complicated than what we have been shown (and I agree with another user, we can't make a judgment call on a judgment without all the facts).

You're right. Nobody who wasn't sitting on a jury can know what that jury's view of the facts and evidence might have been. We get a different view from the outside. And as far as I can tell, nobody here is a patent attorney.

But the patents aren't on whether you can use your thumb and forefinger to zoom. That's ridiculous. There is a patent on the rubber banding effect, however. And that should have been patentable. True, that means nobody else can do it unless Apple licenses it. But so what? It's not like they're withholding a cure for cancer! They got there first.
 
Tell me, what's the relation between being trivial and the ease of licencing a patent? Even if a patent is extremely trivial, a company can ask as much as they want for it.

This is wrong. The threshold should be improved. The US should have a look at European law.

----------



And I simply disagree.

Apple are patent trolls who try to dominate and achieve monopoly by using trivial patents.

I don't think "pinch to zoom" is any kind of innovation. I am disgusted by them and hope that they will get a taste of their own medicine soon.

So we both have different opinions, let's call it a day.

I see what, 9 people that thought differently, and a judge. A lot of paper work from Samsung that pretty much (out side of saying LETS DO IT THIS WAY, exactly) show how Samsung copied Apple's iPhone. Its pretty bad, just accept it. If they are a good enough company (Samsung), they will fix it and make it work better. Like they should have in the first place.

Don't complain. If Apple had lost this case, I certainly wouldn't have complained about it. Just would have said "Apple now do it better".
 
Chances are worse. We know this case will be appealed so it will go down from the value it is at right now.

Not necessarily. I believe Judge Koh can still increase the damages because the jury found willful infringement. The appellate court can, but won't necessarily reduce the damages. Of note, most of the products are not longer for sale, so damages are the only available remedy.
 
You cannot buy apps from other places other than the App Store. You cannot use any other service for micro payments other than Apple's system. You cannot use another cloud storage system other than Apple's iCloud. You cannot develop an app that replaces functionality provided by Apple (even if your solution is a million times better).


This is a really bad analogy. You're not asking a company to sell products made by another company.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're probably an Android fan. It's open source and uses Google Play, which has way more freedom. People really love Google Play compared to Apple's AppStore, don't they?

I mean really look at how many apps are on Google Play. And guess what? They're all 5 star quality apps!
 
Go away short sellers....

you're like the guy that stalks his ex girlfriend

He's just just Apple stock and will loose even more come Monday morning, cover,cover,cover.
Bravo for Tim Cooks keeping Steve Job's young chemically induced brilliance alive, and in their name.
Should they have lost to encourage competition, as suggested by stock analysts? IMO, NO, as this will encourage NEW interfaces, i.e Bounce Back, and other people to think for themselves and not steal Steve's ideas.
Congrats to Apple (yes Im long since 1993), and the DeadHead working at Apple who come up with the brilliance.....Bertha don't ya come 'round here no more...RH
 
What's clear is not much has changed on this board. And that was to be expected. No matter what the outcome - it doesn't really change perspective. And the general customer won't care a bit either.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.